The format wars: of lasers and (creative) destruction

Remember the format wars? Ars looks back at the heated battles between VHS and …

No, it's not reality television versus talk shows, or Top 40 radio against "the best of the '80s—and more!" The wars I'm thinking about pit technologies against one another, usually in a battle to the death of one or more of the contestants. It's One format to rule them all every time, and the streets are littered with the remains of the losers.

These wars are loathsome because we consumers have to pick a side or else lose out on something awesome, and then the ones who picked the wrong one have to pay up again for the winning technology. But format wars also keep the carousel of progress spinning and fan the flames of innovation. Join me for a brief look back at the format wars of yesteryear, and a look ahead at what will replace them.

Betamax v. VHS

Let's start with some well-known and fairly recent history. Sony launched the home video revolution in 1975 with the Betamax tape format; the company asked Japan's Ministry of Trade and Industry to make Beta an official standard with government backing, but JVC refused to play ball and introduced its own VHS system a couple of years later. The rest, as they say, is history. But why did VHS tapes kill Betamax?

It wasn't because VHS was technically superior—Betamax tapes started out with slightly higher resolution than VHS, and less video noise as well. Also, Sony's more sophisticated lacing system (the way the tape winds between guides and read/write heads in the player) allowed Betamax to pull off a few tricks that early VHS players couldn't duplicate. You could fast-forward or rewind Beta tapes without losing the picture, for instance, and video editing on a Beta system produces cleaner cuts.

JVC's format roared onto the market with a couple of distinct advantages, though. Chief among them was the ability to record two hours of NTSC-encoded video versus one hour for Betamax.

American consumers seemed to be more interested in long recordings than good-looking ones, and VHS quickly gained the upper hand in the US market. Sony fought back with thinner Beta tapes and slower tape speeds, extending the play time at the expense of picture quality, but JVC and a host of allies had already turned their short-lived tape length advantage into economies of scale. The rich get richer, and mass-produced video players get cheaper; soon enough, the technical superiority of Betamax mattered not a whit and VHS scored an 85% global market share by 1986.

In 1988, Sony started to make VHS players and Beta was left to die on the vine. The Video 2000 system from Philips, which also was arguably better than VHS but also more costly, never gained traction and sunk without a trace. At best, V2000 was about even with the already-dying Betamax at 7.5% market share each. The war was over by then.

So why was this war ever started? If JVC hadn't decided to go its own way, Betamax would have won by default. Short of a customer revolt, video tapes would then have been stuck with one hour of high-quality video signal for years. The series of compromises from both the Betamax and VHS camps that finally produced 10-hour recording times with very, very lossy quality might or might not have happened, and at any rate would have come about at a much slower rate.

Early adopters of both VHS and Betamax shelled out $1,000 or more (in 1980 dollars—over $2,400 when adjusted for 30 years of inflation) for their fancy new technology, and some of them ended up with expensive paperweights. But the rest of us ended up with better and cheaper players, packed with features designed to outdo the opposition. All told, the VHS-Betamax war was more good than bad for the average video watcher.

DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray

When DVD players started showing up in American living rooms, the VHS incumbents crawled out with nary a fight. DVD versus VHS was less of a war than a wholesale slaughter, and the age of magnetic video tapes ended with little fanfare in 2006 when the last major studio powered down the tape machines. That was allegedly the William Hurt vehicle "A History of Violence," filmed in 2005 but released on DVD and VHS in March, 2006. Thanks for the memories, Bill.

Early reviews for either format were not overly positive. My colleague Nate Anderson summed the situation up thusly: "The consensus seems to be: unless you need it now, you're better off waiting a year. Prices will be down, quality will be up, and features will be multiplied. You'll also have a lot more content to watch on your shiny new device."

Nate was absolutely right, of course. Sony launched the PlayStation 3 in time for the holidays, and that console is still the leading Blu-ray player on the market with over 24 million systems sold. Early high-def disc players could only display 1080i video, but full-on 1080p hardware was not far behind. Toshiba presented a triple-layer HD DVD format that evened up the data storage capacity between the two combatants.

And of course, prices fell through the floor. You can get a refurbished Blu-ray player today for about $110, which is better than 90% off from the debut hardware.

While the Betamax-VHS bout lasted for more than a decade, the fat lady sang for HD DVD only 18 months after the inital hardware launch.

99 Reader Comments

Digital distribution all the way for me, I have completely bypassed Blu-Ray.I haven't bought a DVD in years, and the first thing I'm going to do with DVD I'll get with the voucher I got for Christmas, is rip it to computer.Also, to clarify, when I say "Digital Distribution", I'm not talking about bittorrent. Where I am, iTunes is the most convenient, easiest way to do it, but wherever you are, and whichever service you use, it's a winner.Actually, that's not true, some DD platforms are absolute dogs, but if you reach the iTunes level of convenience, you have me as a customer.

I am in the digital distribution camp as well. The HD DVD/Blu-ray war was a joke. I don't even want to go into the reasons why HD DVD was better for consumers than Blu-ray but Digital Distribution is best for all of us, not the mention the environment to boot.

Between Hulu, Netflix Instant Watch, and iTunes, I think we are finally in a place where the consumer can comfortably settle into the actual content.

The only good thing to come out of the HD format war is that they so alienated the people that respected their technology the most, they shut down their avenues for future format wars. You can bet I won't be buying anything in a new physical format until there is a clear victor. Format wars can go suck it.

Being in Canada, it is blu-ray/DVD for me or nothing. I don't find digital distribution beneficial to consumer at all.

ISPs in Canada have very low bandwidth cap. Streaming gigabytes of movies is just not viable for most regular consumer with 20-40 dollars/month internet plans.

Digital copies also can't be lend or resell to third party.

Digital distribution has the worst type of region restriction. It would make it impossible for me to explore content legally that are not 'released' in Canada. It was very nice that HD-DVD doesn't have region codes.

Originally posted by xwred1:Aww, I'm disappointed minidisc was not mentioned.

Its merits were that it looked cool and it was better than tape. That's about it; what's it with Sony and that utter desperation for trying to make up their own incompatible standards? (Memorystick, I'm looking at you. Also you, UMD).

Originally posted by xwred1:Aww, I'm disappointed minidisc was not mentioned.

Its merits were that it looked cool and it was better than tape. That's about it; what's it with Sony and that utter desperation for trying to make up their own incompatible standards? (Memorystick, I'm looking at you. Also you, UMD).

Early on, MiniDisc faced credible (but laughable, in hindsight) competition from DCC (Digital Compact Cassette; physically backward compatible with plain ol' audiocassette, but digital.) That stifled MiniDisc's usability early on. And by the time DCC had gone and died, MP3 players were just starting onto the scene.

If MD had come to market even two years earlier, it likely would have totally replaced standard cassette tapes, as a more-portable compliment to CD. (That's what I used it for, I still have (sitting in a box in the basement,) my old car MD/CD deck, and my 'bookshelf component' system with tape, CD, and MD is the best sounding audio device in the house.)

One of these days, I need to buy one of the later MD players that could output directly to computer to rip my collection of pressed MDs. (Yup, early on, they sold music on read-only MDs. That died out pretty quickly here in the U.S., lasted maybe a year and a half.)

As for the "their own incompatible standards"? You mean like Blu-ray? (Of course, the first Sony format to *WIN* a format war is the one I didn't go with.)

It happened in the music market - MP3 vs AAC vs WMA. MP3 won, but only just. iTunes still sells AAC by default, but has mostly dropped DRM and allows exporting to MP3s. Most web retailers just ship MP3s. Nobody bothers with WMA anymore.So MP3 won, but not exactly convincingly.

What really won was the lack of DRM, and the lowest common denominator format. Until DRM was dispensed with, music was locked to specific devices or ecosystems of devices, and customers weren't interested.

However, other sectors of the entertainment/media industry will likely not be smart enough to notice this.

It's already happening in eBooks. Early devices could only "play" their own formats. The current generation of devices plays most formats, but the vendors are locked into DRM suicide.And at some point customers will be annoyed that they can't just switch from Amazon's reader to Sony's or Apple's. And then the third generation of products and services arrives - light touch DRM and a lowest common denominator format.

I don't feel like I'm going out on a limb in predicting the same thing for movies.

Media players that are almost able to play every known video file irregardless of container type, codec used, size are already on the market. You have the cheap Western Digital HD player to the Popcorn brand.

If the consumer electronic giants have any iota of intelligence, they will integrate these capabilities into their newer TV models together with making them DLNA compatible so that they are able to playback remote streams.

Of course, the content providers will begin whining about DRM. *SIGH*

I wouldn't write off Blue Ray at the moment. Not everyone has a gigabit internet connection after all. The only problem with Blue Ray remains cost. Its not getting cheaper and the main reason is probably maintaining the DRM upon it.

If you have a 40+ inch TV and a good sound system, the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is extremely evident (assuming, of course, the encoding etc. for the Blu Ray was done right, which wasn't the case in the beginning).

There are a couple of things that seem strange in this article. FIrst, new Blu Ray players are about $110, at least for entry level. There is no need to buy a refurb there. This is also helping move the sales of DVD and upconverting DVD players to Blu Ray - the cost difference is small. See, for example the Sony BDP-S360 ($129 at Amazon).

Digital distribution is all fine and dandy... if you happen to live in the US! In Portugal I don't have Hulu, Netflix or even streaming broadcasts from US networks. All I get is a stupid page telling me I live in the wrong place.

Unfortunately I do like to re-watch some flicks from time to time, so I keep subsidizing the content industry by buying their stuff. Maybe I'm doing it wrong and I should just download anything I want from the Interwebs :P

As for HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray (can't help myself): HD-DVD and LG (with their combo PC drives) ftw!! I'm still buying brand new HD-DVD titles at a fraction of their original price from old stock, they load faster, look as good as Blu-Ray and never leave me hanging like some Blu-Rays which several times forced me to wait for some software update which I never knew if and when they were coming out.

Re: MD- when I first came to Japan in 2002 MD players were ubiquitous, and made by a variety of companies. Interestingly, pre-recorded MD was already dead (or at least nearly so), and MD players were used almost exclusively as a sort of proto-mp3 player, which people used to rip a half dozen or so of their CDs to a single disc. Interestingly, the early Sony music players stored their data in the same ATRAC compression format that was used on their MiniDiscs, which while technically superior added a cumbersome and time consuming extra step when transferring files from one's PC. It was a couple of very long years before they caved and added MP3 support to their flash and hard drive based music players, completely squandering the early and massive lead they had over Apple in the Japanese market. If only Sony Electronics had managed to capitalize on the enormous mindshare they had with their MD players instead of letting the media divisions of the company force excessive DRM and lousy proprietary software they could have very easily beat Apple.

By the time 1TB of video storage isn't enough anymore, chances are that physical storage will be a bit player in the grand scheme of entertainment. All-digital distribution through media streams or downloadable files should be the standard before long, relegating physical formats to backup duties at best.

For digital distribution of films to take off, you need to be able to download a movie in under two hours (i.e. be able to stream it without buffering). 1TB of storage won't be enough when a film is >1TB. So, that's a _consistent_ download speed of 0.5TB/hour. A little maths and that's....

(drum roll)

1.1Gbit/sec (where 1Gbit = 1,000,000,000 bits)

Does anyone honestly believe that the majority of the population will have gigabit download speeds any time soon? Even in 20 years from now?

However, if we assume that movies will have bitrates of under 100Mbit/sec (2-3 times current Blu-Ray bitrates), then I can see it happening in 20 years. Maybe.

It doesn't bode well that a discussion of format wars should have so little regard for the films themselves.

Personally, I agree that BD will be the last physical media format. But, for the next 5 years at least, I believe it is by far the best investment. I'm no fan of DRM, but you can easily play a BD on multiple machines, lend it to a friend, or resell it - none of which is straightforward if all you have is a digital download. Plus, many BDs come with a 'free' digital copy you can transfer to your laptop or iPhone.

Furthermore, the article states that:

"Upconverting DVD players are swiftly becoming the norm, and it takes a very large screen or a curmudgeonly eye for detail to tell the difference between upconverted DVD and straight-up Blu-ray content."

I couldn't disagree more. The BDs of North By Northwest, The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind are a clear leap in clarity over their DVD equivalents. I'm surprised this is even up for debate.

The only sticking point - and it's a fair one - is whether you are willing to shell out extra for a HDTV, a BD player and the extra cost of the BDs themselves. Each to their own.

Thinking the format wars will stop because of the move to digital distribution is naive. It will only increase. Formats as a push for hardware upgrades will still be in play, and DRM is sure to rear it's ugly head and "break" on non-approved or obsolete equipment. The real war gearing up is between approved black boxes like we've always bought vs home HTPC setups.

Originally posted by pyu:Media players that are almost able to play every known video file irregardless of container type, codec used, size are already on the market. You have the cheap Western Digital HD player to the Popcorn brand.

If the consumer electronic giants have any iota of intelligence, they will integrate these capabilities into their newer TV models together with making them DLNA compatible so that they are able to playback remote streams.

Of course, the content providers will begin whining about DRM. *SIGH*

I wouldn't write off Blue Ray at the moment. Not everyone has a gigabit internet connection after all. The only problem with Blue Ray remains cost. Its not getting cheaper and the main reason is probably maintaining the DRM upon it.

What do you mean blu-ray is not getting cheaper? New releases are often now the same price (actually sometimes even cheaper) as their DVD counterparts if you do a little shopping around. Sure, the standard not-on-sale price is still ridiculous, but it clearly pays to know your prices and shop at more than one place. Keep your eyes open. Good prices are out there. Players are getting cheaper, too. Only a few months ago, not all players were Profile 2.0 compliant. Nearly all of them are now Profile 2.0 compliant and most pack in extra features like Netflix and Pandora streaming for under $200 now. Those features were previously only found on players in the $300+ range. New players can be had for close to $100. Again, you just need to open your eyes and take a closer look.

Originally posted by kobolds:I think one thing we all can agree with is that blu-ray will be the last media format .

I'm personally hoping that you are wrong and that the next format has no DRM attached. Downloads are a losing proposition to me. Without True Broadband(TM), you won't have enough hours in the day to download anything and if you watch (as we do) some movies multiple times....well, I have no intention of paying them over and over when I can buy a DVD and just pop it in the reader whenever I want. We still have all our VHS tapes because I have no intention of re-buying every blinking movie again and again as formats change. Just say NO to BluPay.

Digital distribution has a massive problem - band caps - both literally caps on bandwidth but also, more irritatingly, on data itself. Downloading a terabyte of data is a formidable undertaking and simply not practical in today's broadband world and unless ISPs and governments start making radical changes in the next few years (which I don't see happening) then 'digital distribution' isn't going to be any good. Even downloading a 50GB movie in 'blu-ray' format, or a 50GB game (eg id's Rage when it comes out) would put the majority of people over their monthly data allowances...

Not to mention DRM, which is not going away, will mean we'll end up paying as much for downloaded content as for anything on a disc.

Minidisc btw was a commercial success, beating DCC and remaining popular, especially in Japan, for years. DAT enjoyed years of use in the professional audio space, not to mention the computer world. Memory Sticks continue to be used, although Sony shot itself in the foot by not putting a memory stick slot on the PS2. Laserdisc was never in a format war - DVD murdered it instantaneously (unlike VHS which took 10 years to die). UMD was not in a format war. Whilst the idea of buying UMD movies is a joke, the format will last as long as the player (the PSP) does. Saying UMD is a joke format is like saying DS carts are a joke format...

Format wars are good - they drive innovation and create choice. What isn't good is the ridiculous hyperbole that surrounds them. The ultimate thing is that format wars are redundant not because formats are redundant but because physical players are becoming redundant. A computer can play any format... and computers are the future of media playing. For example, an iPod is quite a powerful computer.

Originally posted by kobolds:I think one thing we all can agree with is that blu-ray will be the last media format .

I'm not entirely convinced of that. Many users still have a use for a portable storage media that isn't locked to a particular player. When a movie comes on a disc, by default it comes with as much storage space as it needs to hold it. I don't need to periodically buy a bigger hard drive to accomodate more movies in my collection. With digital distribution, I'm supplying the storage capacity and it doesn't automagically increase to fit the movie I'm buying. I'd much rather tote around a small folder of discs that won't be destroyed if I drop them compared to a relatively fragile hard-drive. I suppose you could use some kind of flash storage instead of a hard drive, but cost per gigabyte is still no match for a disc and it likely never will be. Even recordable BD-50 discs are much cheaper per gigabyte than SD flash cards.

Originally posted by kobolds:I think one thing we all can agree with is that blu-ray will be the last media format .

I'm not entirely convinced of that. Many users still have a use for a portable storage media that isn't locked to a particular player. ...

Sure, *users* do, but the content creators don't want you to have that flexibility. All signs point to a continuing erosion of the balance of copyright. Digital distribution won't mean you download "your" copy that you "bought;" it will mean you're temporarily given access to content held and managed outside of your control.

Blu-Ray could be the last *media format* -- not the last storage format -- because the last thing big content wants is media in any form. If there is media, then you've bought something (or at least someone has) and certain rights go along with that purchase. Get rid of the media, you get rid of the purchase, you get rid of the user's fair use rights. Enables whatever incremental revenue streams they want.

We still have all our VHS tapes because I have no intention of re-buying every blinking movie again and again as formats change. Just say NO to BluPay.

You don't have to re-buy EVERY blinking movie. Just the ones that would benefit from the format upgrade. BD players are also decent DVD upscalers. Shame they can't upscale VHS, but you have to draw a line somewhere, right?

I'd LOVE to see a DRM-free format (be it download, or physical media). But I would happily settle for a format with DRM that gives me the flexibility to have a portable copy on my laptop/iphone, and a managed copy on my media centre/PS3 etc. That would fulfill 100% of my own personal 'reasonable use' requirements.

Many BDs already come with a portable copy, and for my money they work REALLY well (at least, the iTunes compatible ones do). Time will tell whether managed copy will be as successful.

"Upconverting DVD players are swiftly becoming the norm, and it takes a very large screen or a curmudgeonly eye for detail to tell the difference between upconverted DVD and straight-up Blu-ray content."

I couldn't disagree more. The BDs of North By Northwest, The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind are a clear leap in clarity over their DVD equivalents. I'm surprised this is even up for debate.

...

That all depends on how you choose to cherry pick. Some BD transfers are crap and some DVD transfers are great.

Although the question is entirely moot for most people as they don't care one way or the other. They barely care that the last part of Wizard of Oz is in color. Nevermind nit picking about resolution. They couldn't care less about extra clarity of a new recording format and certainly won't pay extra for it.

This is why all of the current streaming services do as well as they do.

This is why iTunes, AppleTV and iPods do as well as they do for video.

The easiest way to get content to your TV is hook up a computer and play the content using that. Use some sort of TV-supported interface - many HDTVs support VGA, DVI, and HDMI, which your computer might be able to output. Certain video cards have a component video adapter which can also be used. Just play the content using the computer and view on screen. Done. Easy.

For your TV to playback content itself? We are a long way off from that. It takes a lot of processing power to do video decode. Pulling content from the internet is one thing, but it's pretty difficult for a TV to decide with no help from the user what content you have on your home network and how to stream it. Also - your home network (if it's wireless) probably doesn't have enough bandwidth for an HD video.

Not having a 40" TV the quality improvements provided by Blu-ray don't help me at all. What *is* nice is that now I can download (read: "pirate") DVD quality, DRM-free movies and burn several to one Blu-ray disc that I can watch on my TV.

The BDs of North By Northwest, The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind are a clear leap in clarity over their DVD equivalents. I'm surprised this is even up for debate.

That all depends on how you choose to cherry pick. Some BD transfers are crap and some DVD transfers are great.

I was comparing cherries with cherries, not apples with oranges. I can't think of a single movie that looks "crap" on BD and "great" on DVD.

quote:

Although the question is entirely moot for most people as they don't care one way or the other. They barely care that the last part of Wizard of Oz is in color. Nevermind nit picking about resolution. They couldn't care less about extra clarity of a new recording format and certainly won't pay extra for it.

That's a sweeping statement. Healthy HDTV sales, BD sales and HD channel subscriptions suggest there is a market for extra clarity, and as prices drop that market will naturally grow.

quote:

This is why all of the current streaming services do as well as they do.

This is why iTunes, AppleTV and iPods do as well as they do for video.

People will take convenience over quality.

Do you have comparative sales figures for digital downloads versus BD? I would be surprised if they are higher, but I could be wrong.

And I would happily compare the 'convenience' of an AppleTV setup versus a BD player setup. I'm not anti digital-download. But I think that, at present, 'most' people find disc-based hardware easier to use.

I was always under the impression that Betamax lost to VHS due to Sony's expensive and restrictive licensing terms for the format, rather than any actual consumer "vote". Simply put, JVC licensed the bejeezus out of VHS and won by overwhelming numbers and much lower prices.

People who can afford to repurchase a movie every time they want to watch it will switch to downloads. Local storage of every downloaded movie will require a HUGE investement even if holographic technology takes off, so it'll be a watch-and-delete world for most people. This will not work for those who, using my nieces as an example, rely on SpongeBob Squarepants to be the babysitter. Replay has its place.

I intend to keep buying DVDs even after I get a PS3. Sure, it's not the best but it's good enough and I can play it for a LONG time at no additional cost. What would suck is the abandonment of DVD support in future Blu-Ray (and beyond) players, but that's where you buy several cheap players just before The End and save them for later...

we're about 30:70 disc/streaming.... Netflix/Hulu etc are used on the TV (via laptop) and on computers- the kids just love Netflix on the iMac- as well as Blu-Ray/DVD; as more content goes to streaming so will we; my guess is that the last disc will be used in about a year

haven't gotten a Roku/Apple TV/media PC/Boxee yet but are likely to do so once things shake out a bit more

Originally posted by bash666:There are a couple of things that seem strange in this article. FIrst, new Blu Ray players are about $110, at least for entry level. There is no need to buy a refurb there. This is also helping move the sales of DVD and upconverting DVD players to Blu Ray - the cost difference is small. See, for example the Sony BDP-S360 ($129 at Amazon).

Yes, when the article mentions nonsense like:

quote:

Upconverting DVD players are swiftly becoming the norm.

it becomes obvious that this is a sour-grapes article. No one in their right mind is buying DVD now days. In fact go to your local big box store and you'll see the Blu-Ray disk section starting to take over the DVD section.

I can assume that the author has an HD-DVD that is now as useful as a 300 baud modem.

I don't even have Blu-Ray, but I'm glad it won the battle. It is much more useful and future-proof in general. HD-DVD would never have offered anything even close to 1 terabit data disks. And the extra density of Blu-Ray will help with 3D-on-disk, which is coming. Thank goodness we didn't end up with the HD-DVD dead end, even if a few intrepid journalists had to pay the price of investing in it.

Even though I don't have Blu-Ray, I just bought a Blu-Ray disk. The movie UP was available at Amazon for the same price in DVD and in Blu-Ray+DVD format, so I got the second one and got a Blu-Ray for free for whenever I upgrade.

The main reason that VHS won the video format wars was that JVC foresaw the popularity of home rental of movies, and quickly signed up most of the major Hollywood studios. Video rental stores popped up, apparently almost overnight, and the majority of the titles they stocked were on VHS, so that's the format that people bought. Nothing to do with tape length.Betamax may have lost out in the consumer marketplace, but certainly won in the professional broadcasting arena, where its superior technical quality made it the medium of choice for Electronic News gathering - there wasn't a major news story anywhere on the planet that, for 10 years or so, didn't have someone there with a Betacam recording the action. Sony got a second bite at the consumer cherry, too - the highly succesful Video 8 camcorder format, that even saw a digital version before it was eventually superceded by Mini-DV, is simply a minaturised version of Betamax - just compare the cassettes if you don't believe me!Finally, Betamax had one more area of dominance - using Sony's PCM digital encoding system, it was the first widely-adopted digital recording system used in music studios for stereo mastering.